Bad things happen. They will always happen. To restrict the rights of the overall, law abiding, decent population of a nation to prohibit or at least limit the actions of a few psychopaths is wrong. We don't need "stricter, much stricter, gun controls." We need better human controls. An unstable, unpredictable, violent individual is going to cause harm no matter what. To cut the rights of everybody in an effort to limit him is the wrong way to go about controlling violence.

I agree, but Conservatives must realize that they use this freedom is priceless argument with respect to the 2d Amendment but flip out when liberals use it to criticize the Patriot Act or Miranda Rights, or whatever else.

Bad things happen. They will always happen. To restrict the rights of the overall, law abiding, decent population of a nation to prohibit or at least limit the actions of a few psychopaths is wrong. We don't need "stricter, much stricter, gun controls." We need better human controls. An unstable, unpredictable, violent individual is going to cause harm no matter what. To cut the rights of everybody in an effort to limit him is the wrong way to go about controlling violence.

Bad things happen. They will always happen. To restrict the rights of the overall, law abiding, decent population of a nation to prohibit or at least limit the actions of a few psychopaths is wrong. We don't need "stricter, much stricter, gun controls." We need better human controls. An unstable, unpredictable, violent individual is going to cause harm no matter what. To cut the rights of everybody in an effort to limit him is the wrong way to go about controlling violence.

Oh man, first of all, I didn't say gun control laws WOULD OR WOULD NOT help, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from? I just aked how can you be so sure that gun control laws would not affect the murder rate at all? I mean, aren't murder rates extremely low in countries with gun control laws? What makes you think the same wouldn't happen here?

I can give you several reasons. First, and probably most important, we have a lot of guns in the U.S. I've seen estimates of over 200 million guns, and stats that almost half of all people live in a household with a gun. As a practical matter, we're never going to get all of the guns out of the hands of people, criminals or no. Even if a comprehensive and very strict national policy of gun control was enacted at this point it is not going to effect gun crime in any significant way. We simply cannot go house-to-house collecting guns, which would be the only way to eliminate them. Politically, of course, that would never happen anyway.

Next, it is useless to compare countries with strict gun control laws and low gun crime rates with the U.S. I can think of no countries where this is true where the citizens have had relatively free access to firearms through the course of their history (feel free to correct me, I haven't done exhaustive research on that). In the U.S., firearms have had a unique place in our culture from its inception that is so ingrained, it would be hard to come up with a similar example. Two examples that I know of that I used to quote from my wanton liberal days of youth, Japan and Great Britain, have very different histories regarding citizen ownership of firearms; namely, that they don't have histories of citizen ownership.

So what's the answer? As someone posted earlier, we should have background checks for history of mental illness and a ban on being able to buy guns if someone is ever involuntarily committed. We should also have mandatory, and very stiff, penalties for commission of a crime with a firearm as a deterrent.

As a controversial solution, I think that "gun free" zones around schools are not only useless, but counterproductive. If you are a violent criminal bent on maximum destruction, do you open fire in a police station, or a school in a gun free zone? Even the crazy ones seem smart enough to know that you don't go shooting in a place where people shoot back. While I don't support everyone being able to carry a concealed weapon, I do think that it should be permitted and I do believe that had a couple of students been carrying a gun at Va Tech, the outcome might very well have been different. Maybe not, too, but the victims certainly would have had a chance that they didn't have by not carrying. Believe it or not, people can carry concealed weapons without being trigger-happy gun nuts, so I don't believe that CCW laws necessarily would breed more gun crime. I've seen several examples given in the past couple of weeks of individuals thwarting gun rampages before the gunman could kill more innocents.

"As American as apple pie." That was how Italian newspaper Il Manifesto reportedly described the killing of 32 people and the suicide of the gunman in the Virginia Tech University campus that Monday. There is an overwhelming and very public outpouring of grief for the victims. The consensus seems to be this -- the gunman, a 23-year-old South Korean who migrated to the United States in 1992, was a disturbed youth who exhibited tell tale signs of violence and rage in his creative writings.

Granting that it was Cho Seung-Hui's psychological problems that may have prompted him to kill 32 people, people miss the bigger picture when they fail to ask how a psychologically disturbed youth was able to legally purchase the guns he used in the shooting. The answer is simple. In America, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms -- borrowed out of the Elizabethan era in England which granted Protestants the right to bear arms. Interpretations of the meaning of the right are numerous and of many perspectives. What does not seem to be controverted is the fact that, based on when the right to bear arms became part of the law of the United States, it was meant to address a situation where the people would be confronted with foreign aggression and the citizenry -- as a militia -- should be in a position to defend the country. This seems clear from the very wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, to wit: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In the 1700s, when America was a country in its infancy and its ability to defend itself from another foreign ruler was fragile, the right to bear arms in order to maintain a mass-based militia made sense. But in this day and age, when the United States government owns and controls one of the most, if not the most, comprehensive -- and deadliest -- weaponry and defense systems in the world, is there really a need for an armed mass-based militia? The answer is obvious, isn't it? If the right to bear arms is taken in that context, then it becomes an obsolete concept. It is, therefore, not very surprising that the US courts came up with a new interpretation. In Rex v. Gardner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said: "Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the 'people' [or 'citizen' or 'citizens'] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or 'himself'] and the state,' or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage 'bear arms' was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service."

To my mind, this deflection from the intent of the framers of the Second Amendment is intentional or, at the very least, a subconscious justification. It is curious to note how this singular provision in the American Constitution seems to be responsible for the rise of a new economic power and political influence -- the gun industry. America, today, is the top supplier of guns and ammunition worldwide. In more ways than the average person can imagine, guns keep the American economy alive. Take away the right of the individual to bear arms and the culture that sustains these arms manufacturers die.

The "modern" definition, therefore, of the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the sustenance of this culture. If the right of the individual to bear arms is taken away, what reason will gun manufacturers have to continue making guns? To export them? To sell them in countries marked by internal conflict? That wouldn't look too good, would it? It would look too much as though America was merely exporting violence rather than propagating a culture that says every man has the right to defend himself with the use of a handgun. In short, the Second Amendment is both the proof and the reason to convince foreign countries to buy American-made arms. Yes, it is about business. It is about money.

If we look at America's modern history -- at how it has supported political factions in other countries to overthrow their governments -- the business angle becomes even clearer. When the legitimate market for its arms has been saturated, new markets must be developed. In many cases, it means supporting factions in foreign civil wars, rebellions and revolutions. And when there are no conflicts to fuel, well, things like the Iraq war are hatched. The sale of handguns to individual citizens is a very small percentage of this multibillion dollar business. But it is the backbone that holds the arms industry together. The Second Amendment tells the citizen you have the right to defend yourself with a handgun and goes on to build a mindset that the "right to defend" is fundamental and necessary. When the "right to defend" is then applied on a broader scale, as in the right to defend America from undemocratic forces or even to defend global democracy, the seed has taken its roots and it is not so difficult to convince the average American that the manufacture and sale of more sophisticated high-powered weaponry is indeed justified.

The saddest part of all this is how the right to bear arms has become a failure to its original objective. Instead, it has spawned a cocky culture in the micro and macro levels. It is part and parcel of the street gangs that are eternally trying to wipe each other out with their handguns. And it is as much a part of a nation that uses arms to preserve its way of life often in complete disregard and disrespect for other people's ways of life. I feel sorry for the innocent lives lost in Virginia Tech University. I feel sorry for those they left behind. Yes, Cho Seung-Hui shot all those people. But, if we think hard about it, the right to bear arms played a huge role in placing those guns in his hand.

[...] In America, the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms -- borrowed out of the Elizabethan era in England which granted Protestants the right to bear arms. Interpretations of the meaning of the right are numerous and of many perspectives. What does not seem to be controverted is the fact that, based on when the right to bear arms became part of the law of the United States, it was meant to address a situation where the people would be confronted with foreign aggression and the citizenry -- as a militia -- should be in a position to defend the country. This seems clear from the very wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, to wit: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Did you see today the female private part (Queen of England) meet with survivors of the massacre at Virginia Tech?

Did you see today the female private part (Queen of England) meet with survivors of the massacre at Virginia Tech?

Me too hates English! In fact, most of the things that are wrong with America are so because of the English heritage. Man, English people are weird, eccentric, opinionated, boisterous. The English accent is funny and their pronunciation really sucks.